Every time I see or hear "unalive" i cringe so hard, but there are many more examples that content creators use to fool the censorship algorithm it doesn't bode well for the future and free speech... And all to not offend the companies buying ads... It's quite dystopian and perverse.
O’Brien is a sadist, so his urges are met by his job. It can be assumed that many other inner party members are also “power dynamic enthusiasts” who find sexual fulfillment by torture. And if this torture is state-sanctioned, it cannot be a crime to the regime. They don’t call it the Ministry Of Love for nothing.
I suspect the unofficial rule for the Inner Party is that as long as they are discreet about their sexual activities it isn't a problem. Besides if a Inner Party member is slated for deletion it would help to be able to bring up past affairs as evidence against them.
O'Brien is living with Martin. And yes, while there's an obvious servant role for Martin, I think we are allowed to see this as O'Brien exploiting his position. Julia's bosses are probably exploiting their position over young women who work in the fiction department. They have power over them, so their relationships are exploitative rather than consensual, like Winston-Julia theoretically is (although the Julia novel has different ideas). This is the traditional story of the upper classes exploiting their maids etc. and feeling entitled to the favours of others. Often, the upper classes/ upper middle classes went without their wives/ without marriage in colonial countries, we know what often happened then, this is a parody/ mirror image of that world, surely. Good Etonian characters were theoretically taught the manners of a gentleman, but in practice that didn't exclude exploitation, it just regulated it. Plus, who is reading the bilge the fiction department produces? It is presumably to frighten as much as entertain, it implies the potential for abuse should you fall foul of Miniluv. It is about power, of course, and also teaching the party reader to fantasize about unlimited power, and reduce feelings of healthy personal boundaries. Presumably, like in a the 19th century that Orwell very lightly references, it is marriage that is more heavily policed as moral; O'Brien can't marry Martin, the girls in the fiction department are now not respectable as working girls, and will not be believed if they try to denounce their boss should they 'get into trouble', at which point they will have to marry someone quickly, so marriage is all about 'procreational stability', in reality making an emotional indiscretion respectable by focusing on the virtuous aspect of child rearing. At the same time, of course, the indiscretion can then be used as blackmail down the line. Ingsoc presumably is popular by proposing a return to the rigid 'middle class morality' of the 19th century that pushed this kind of thinking, but then Winston as an OP member is middle class, so perhaps his party morality has been more tailored to him; the proles will get different messages, as will the UP. O'Brien and Martin suggest that, imo, as do the prole families who are more explicitly maternal.
@@EdwardHaas-e8x There would be different grades of medical care, Prole care, OPAR care and INPAR care. INPAR care would be kept out of sight of the masses.
@@Albemarle7 Sure, but to do anything that advanced, even on the lower end, you'd have to THINK quite a bit which I find interesting. There have to be a lot of people who are masters of Doublethink to use their minds so much in their work life but never question Ingsoc.
Thank you for this deep analysis. I think that inner party members don't commit s.e.x.crime. Why? Well, Oceania's rules are based on doublethink. And if party can claim BOTH that proles are animals - and that party liberated them, then the party might as well claim that 'If an inner party member commints a s.e.x. act, then it's not a crime, but an expression of love towards B.B.'s people, and therefore by extension - B.B. himself'.
I think Julia nails it. Like any dictatorship I am sure corruption and depravity happens. I don't think the 1984 mythos would be substantially different.
If the Inner Party seeks power for the sake of power, then S-crimes by them could be seen as a way to exert their power and control, which could be part of their intended role, instead of being a crime itself.
I would go as far as to say this has been consistently true throughout history. O’Brien always said they want power for the sake of power. I’m not convinced they wouldn’t use it for anything and everything they want.
Actually, 2% of the population isn't that rare. This means there is a inner party member for 6-7 outer party ones. This implies that middle management roles with more than 10 people under their supervision would likely already be held by inner party members. E.g. department heads
That the IP can turn off their telescreens for no more than a half hour suggests a) that they may participate in ess eee eks crime; and b) that it doesn’t take then long to finish
Can you really not even say the full word under TH-cam censorship? And yet they'll let you say "intercourse," which means exactly the same thing. Weird.
How do we know that the "laws" on sex that eminate from Inner Party (and its Central Planning/Commande Economy) governance, which mostly apply to Outer Party members(?), apply to Inner Party members themselves? I'm no expert, but if memory serves, we only know of "Inner Party Xes Crimes" because announcements of denouncements invariably included those? Certainly Orwell wrote no lascivious paragraphs regarding O'Brien's close peers. So if the only "evidence" of IPSC (wink) is sourced via Big Brother's propaganda Ministry (of Truth), in its renouncements such as with "Rutherford" ~ that's not evidence of a crime. Has Orwell "brainwashed" us into believing it is, for IP members? I'm purely thoughtcriming today 😮😅😊
Given human history, it's difficult for me to believe that members of the Inner Party wouldn't use their power to abuse others sexually. It's one of the most common and ubiquitous effects of all power imbalances.
The idea of sex crimes in 1984 was one of the least believable parts. If you want to prevent sex because of pair bonding threatens the party you are going about it backwards, you encourage as much sexual libertineism as possible to fry the circuits. If you look at the studies the more different sexual partners a person has the less happy they are in a marriage. Brave new world was closer but what you do is wide spread contraception, inability to turn down sex and party marriage for purpose of eugenics. The marriages can't pair bond but have to spend time together because of children and if the person does manage to pair bond with someone it's fruitless or worse the contraception isn't 100% effective but abortion is readily available. It's a society built for maximum misery.
Orwell wasn't completely wrong though. Communist nations did not exactly encourage marriage (unless there was a population crisis). They viewed it as a private union that could open the door to accumulating wealth and fostering inequality. To them this was yet another capitalist subversion to prevent. Likewise the party didn't want people to choose their partners, as two people with dangerous ideas and inseperable bonds was a serious threat.
@@therealhecatonchiresAnchee Min, the Chinese writer, in her memoirs and novels about the Cultural Revolution presents a very high level of sexual puritanism during this period.
I should note I was primarily speaking about 1984 rather than particular real world regimes. I was pointing out a contradiction between the theoretical behavior for maximum control and what recent sociology has shown
I commend you for your channel, unfortunately the 1984 universe is rather barren when it comes to lore and I can imagine trying to extract anything from the source material at hand must be like syphoning blood from a stone, nonetheless you have done an admirable job so far.
I'm really disappointed that you keep mentioning "Julia" like it's a source of information anywhere on par with 1984. It's a feminist antifanfic that does not deserve to be treated with the respect you're giving it. As much as I appreciate the other aspects of your videos I'm afraid I'm going to have to part ways.
Having to use our version of new speak to avoid the yt censorship is irony while watching this.
"Community standards" speak...
the revolution will be advertiser friendly
@@magnuskallas comspeak?
You guys are all beautiful, 😂.
Comspeak YTSpeak
Every time I see or hear "unalive" i cringe so hard, but there are many more examples that content creators use to fool the censorship algorithm it doesn't bode well for the future and free speech... And all to not offend the companies buying ads... It's quite dystopian and perverse.
O’Brien is a sadist, so his urges are met by his job.
It can be assumed that many other inner party members are also “power dynamic enthusiasts” who find sexual fulfillment by torture. And if this torture is state-sanctioned, it cannot be a crime to the regime.
They don’t call it the Ministry Of Love for nothing.
I actually never thought about that. The scenes with Goldstein in act 3 did sort of give off that vibe.
This could also explain why the inner part members are capable of switching off their telescreens.
I suspect the unofficial rule for the Inner Party is that as long as they are discreet about their sexual activities it isn't a problem.
Besides if a Inner Party member is slated for deletion it would help to be able to bring up past affairs as evidence against them.
There will no need to bring up past acts: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
O'Brien is living with Martin. And yes, while there's an obvious servant role for Martin, I think we are allowed to see this as O'Brien exploiting his position. Julia's bosses are probably exploiting their position over young women who work in the fiction department. They have power over them, so their relationships are exploitative rather than consensual, like Winston-Julia theoretically is (although the Julia novel has different ideas). This is the traditional story of the upper classes exploiting their maids etc. and feeling entitled to the favours of others. Often, the upper classes/ upper middle classes went without their wives/ without marriage in colonial countries, we know what often happened then, this is a parody/ mirror image of that world, surely. Good Etonian characters were theoretically taught the manners of a gentleman, but in practice that didn't exclude exploitation, it just regulated it.
Plus, who is reading the bilge the fiction department produces? It is presumably to frighten as much as entertain, it implies the potential for abuse should you fall foul of Miniluv. It is about power, of course, and also teaching the party reader to fantasize about unlimited power, and reduce feelings of healthy personal boundaries. Presumably, like in a the 19th century that Orwell very lightly references, it is marriage that is more heavily policed as moral; O'Brien can't marry Martin, the girls in the fiction department are now not respectable as working girls, and will not be believed if they try to denounce their boss should they 'get into trouble', at which point they will have to marry someone quickly, so marriage is all about 'procreational stability', in reality making an emotional indiscretion respectable by focusing on the virtuous aspect of child rearing. At the same time, of course, the indiscretion can then be used as blackmail down the line. Ingsoc presumably is popular by proposing a return to the rigid 'middle class morality' of the 19th century that pushed this kind of thinking, but then Winston as an OP member is middle class, so perhaps his party morality has been more tailored to him; the proles will get different messages, as will the UP. O'Brien and Martin suggest that, imo, as do the prole families who are more explicitly maternal.
Have you ever done a video on the different jobs people have in 1984? I'd be interested to see that explored.
I have done a similar video. It just hasn't been released yet.
I'd be curious about the people who manufacture and operate fairly high tech equipment as well as medical personnel.
@@EdwardHaas-e8x There would be different grades of medical care, Prole care, OPAR care and INPAR care. INPAR care would be kept out of sight of the masses.
@@Albemarle7 Sure, but to do anything that advanced, even on the lower end, you'd have to THINK quite a bit which I find interesting.
There have to be a lot of people who are masters of Doublethink to use their minds so much in their work life but never question Ingsoc.
Thank you for this deep analysis. I think that inner party members don't commit s.e.x.crime. Why? Well, Oceania's rules are based on doublethink. And if party can claim BOTH that proles are animals - and that party liberated them, then the party might as well claim that 'If an inner party member commints a s.e.x. act, then it's not a crime, but an expression of love towards B.B.'s people, and therefore by extension - B.B. himself'.
I think Julia nails it. Like any dictatorship I am sure corruption and depravity happens. I don't think the 1984 mythos would be substantially different.
not the channel i knew i wanted
not the channel i knew i needed
but the channel i really needed
If the Inner Party seeks power for the sake of power, then S-crimes by them could be seen as a way to exert their power and control, which could be part of their intended role, instead of being a crime itself.
Cult leaders always preach purity chastity and other virtures, while aquiring harems. Why should INSOC be different.
Exactly!
Agreed.
I would go as far as to say this has been consistently true throughout history. O’Brien always said they want power for the sake of power. I’m not convinced they wouldn’t use it for anything and everything they want.
I was born in 1984, on the 5th of November, make of that what you will...
Actually, 2% of the population isn't that rare. This means there is a inner party member for 6-7 outer party ones. This implies that middle management roles with more than 10 people under their supervision would likely already be held by inner party members. E.g. department heads
Thank you for giving us that spoiler warning, about to get the book and I'm very excited
Thanks for the spoiler warning, I'm halfway through Julia!
That the IP can turn off their telescreens for no more than a half hour suggests a) that they may participate in ess eee eks crime; and b) that it doesn’t take then long to finish
Can you really not even say the full word under TH-cam censorship? And yet they'll let you say "intercourse," which means exactly the same thing. Weird.
How do we know that the "laws" on sex that eminate from Inner Party (and its Central Planning/Commande Economy) governance, which mostly apply to Outer Party members(?), apply to Inner Party members themselves?
I'm no expert, but if memory serves, we only know of "Inner Party Xes Crimes" because announcements of denouncements invariably included those? Certainly Orwell wrote no lascivious paragraphs regarding O'Brien's close peers.
So if the only "evidence" of IPSC (wink) is sourced via Big Brother's propaganda Ministry (of Truth), in its renouncements such as with "Rutherford" ~ that's not evidence of a crime.
Has Orwell "brainwashed" us into believing it is, for IP members?
I'm purely thoughtcriming today 😮😅😊
It would be naive to presume Inner Party members would march to the same rules as the plebs.
Given human history, it's difficult for me to believe that members of the Inner Party wouldn't use their power to abuse others sexually. It's one of the most common and ubiquitous effects of all power imbalances.
The idea of sex crimes in 1984 was one of the least believable parts. If you want to prevent sex because of pair bonding threatens the party you are going about it backwards, you encourage as much sexual libertineism as possible to fry the circuits. If you look at the studies the more different sexual partners a person has the less happy they are in a marriage. Brave new world was closer but what you do is wide spread contraception, inability to turn down sex and party marriage for purpose of eugenics. The marriages can't pair bond but have to spend time together because of children and if the person does manage to pair bond with someone it's fruitless or worse the contraception isn't 100% effective but abortion is readily available. It's a society built for maximum misery.
Orwell wasn't completely wrong though. Communist nations did not exactly encourage marriage (unless there was a population crisis). They viewed it as a private union that could open the door to accumulating wealth and fostering inequality. To them this was yet another capitalist subversion to prevent. Likewise the party didn't want people to choose their partners, as two people with dangerous ideas and inseperable bonds was a serious threat.
@@therealhecatonchiresAnchee Min, the Chinese writer, in her memoirs and novels about the Cultural Revolution presents a very high level of sexual puritanism during this period.
I should note I was primarily speaking about 1984 rather than particular real world regimes. I was pointing out a contradiction between the theoretical behavior for maximum control and what recent sociology has shown
Do a video explaining the horrors of war and the themes of totalitarianism.
I commend you for your channel, unfortunately the 1984 universe is rather barren when it comes to lore and I can imagine trying to extract anything from the source material at hand must be like syphoning blood from a stone, nonetheless you have done an admirable job so far.
Xescrime
Xescrime
"Excess crime"(??)
🎉😂🎉 👻🎃👻
Hi
What would've happened if Julia got pregnant?
Better to be a prol
I think that "Julia"-novel is not really the best reference at all.
@Coglio
Your comment 🎉 makes me think about Hari Selden's "Psychohistory" from "Foundation and Empire"
(If I may) 😊
I'm really disappointed that you keep mentioning "Julia" like it's a source of information anywhere on par with 1984. It's a feminist antifanfic that does not deserve to be treated with the respect you're giving it. As much as I appreciate the other aspects of your videos I'm afraid I'm going to have to part ways.